This is implying a very strong selection bias in the past testing towards the most severe cases. The mortality rates are certainly much lower than these estimates.

Is that really true though?

The UK has administered some of the most tests at over 7,119 but only 13 confirmed cases. US has done a measly 445 tests, yet 60 cases? Might be things are just starting to ramp up, and yet we're behind on testing...

I think the US tests were much more targeted to those most likely to have contracted it. Like US citizens returning from Wuhan/Hubei.

I do continue to believe that the real cases are much higher than the reported cases, though, and many of these unreported cases are the ones with the mildest symptoms. This will continue to skew statistics for some period of time.

It's a physical fact that older people's bodies aren't as able to fight off diseases, and they are likelier to have mortality rates.

If no one's allowed to actually explain the physical facts of how the physical universe works, because it's "insensitive" to mention that older people are more likely to die when they're sick, how is our society supposed to come to correct [1] answers when it comes to medical science and health policy?

[1] By "correct," I mean minimizing the incidence and severity of illness within relevant resource constraints.

This isn’t science, it’s someone’s opinion on how concerned other people should be based on their interpretation of some very incomplete data.

It isn’t just conveying information, its downplaying the severity of the situation.

Eventually time gets the better of us all. I don't think that's an insensitive statement, just pragmatic/realistic.

And here I am pondering if the generational time bomb's been defused. Parent's downright warm'n'fuzzy.